Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
doi:10.5194/bg-12-1893-2015
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Microbial iron uptake in the naturally fertilized waters in the
vicinity of the Kerguelen Islands: phytoplankton–bacteria
interactions
M. Fourquez1,2,3, I. Obernosterer2,3, D. M. Davies4,5, T. W. Trull4,5, and S. Blain2,3
1Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7001, Australia2Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7621, Laboratoire d’Océanographie Microbienne,
Observatoire Océanologique, 66650 Banyuls/mer, France3CNRS, UMR 7621, Laboratoire d’Océanographie Microbienne, Observatoire Océanologique, 66650 Banyuls/mer, France4CSIRO Oceans and Climate Flagship, Hobart 7001, Australia5Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart 7001, Australia
Correspondence to: M. Fourquez ([email protected])
Received: 7 October 2014 – Published in Biogeosciences Discuss.: 24 October 2014
Revised: 4 February 2015 – Accepted: 11 February 2015 – Published: 23 March 2015
Abstract. Iron (Fe) uptake by the microbial community and
the contribution of three different size fractions was de-
termined during spring phytoplankton blooms in the natu-
rally Fe-fertilized area off the Kerguelen Islands (KEOPS2).
Total Fe uptake in surface waters was on average 34±
6 pmolFeL−1 d−1, and microplankton (> 25 µm size frac-
tion; 40–69 %) and pico-nanoplankton (0.8–25 µm size frac-
tion; 29–59 %) were the main contributors. The contribu-
tion of heterotrophic bacteria (0.2–0.8 µm size fraction) to
total Fe uptake was low at all stations (1–2 %). Iron up-
take rates normalized to carbon biomass were highest for
pico-nanoplankton above the Kerguelen Plateau and for mi-
croplankton in the downstream plume. We also investigated
the potential competition between heterotrophic bacteria and
phytoplankton for the access to Fe. Bacterial Fe uptake rates
normalized to carbon biomass were highest in incubations
with bacteria alone, and dropped in incubations contain-
ing other components of the microbial community. Inter-
estingly, the decrease in bacterial Fe uptake rate (up to 26-
fold) was most pronounced in incubations containing pico-
nanoplankton and bacteria, while the bacterial Fe uptake
was only reduced by 2- to 8-fold in incubations contain-
ing the whole community (bacteria + pico-nanoplankton +
microplankton). In Fe-fertilized waters, the bacterial Fe up-
take rates normalized to carbon biomass were positively cor-
related with primary production. Taken together, these re-
sults suggest that heterotrophic bacteria are outcompeted by
small-sized phytoplankton cells for the access to Fe during
the spring bloom development, most likely due to the limita-
tion by organic matter. We conclude that the Fe and carbon
cycles are tightly coupled and driven by a complex interplay
of competition and synergy between different members of
the microbial community.
1 Introduction
Microorganisms in the ocean are characterized by
widespread distributions, large abundances and high
metabolic rate activities. Consequently they play a pivotal
role in biogeochemical cycles of many elements (Arrigo,
2005; Madsen, 2011). Following the pioneering work of
Martin (1990), a major achievement in the past decades has
been the discovery of the tight but complex link between the
carbon (C) and iron (Fe) biogeochemical cycles in the ocean.
Thus, it is not surprising that microorganisms play a crucial
role in the functioning and the coupling of both cycles.
Autotrophs are a net C dioxide (CO2) sink and heterotrophs
are a net CO2 source, but both require Fe to process C.
Therefore, the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy
and ultimately the air–sea CO2 flux should be influenced by
Fe availability for microorganisms. This issue is definitively
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
1894 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
critical in environments receiving low Fe supply, like the
high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll regions (HNLC).
The role of heterotrophic bacteria has been far less stud-
ied than that of phytoplankton. However, essential data for
the understanding of the responses of heterotrophic bacte-
ria to Fe limitation have already been collected. Iron uptake
rates, Fe cellular contents and Fe :C ratios have been deter-
mined in various environments (Tortell et al., 1996; Maldon-
ado et al., 2001; Sarthou et al., 2008). Culture experiments
(Granger and Price, 1999; Fourquez et al., 2014) have eluci-
dated some of the metabolic pathways affected by Fe limita-
tion which may explain the changes observed in Fe-limited
heterotrophic cells or communities. Additionally, the obli-
gate requirement of Fe for heterotrophic bacteria and phy-
toplankton suggests that both organisms are competing for
Fe acquisition. The competition between phytoplankton and
bacteria was addressed experimentally (Mills et al., 2008)
and conceptually (Litchman et al., 2004) for the access to ni-
trogen and phosphorus, but this issue has been rarely studied
in the case of Fe (Boyd et al., 2012). Beside this possible pure
competition, both autotrophic and heterotrophic microorgan-
isms could also benefit from each other. Phytoplankton are
a source of C for heterotrophic bacteria and the production
of ligands by these latter could make Fe available for other
microorganisms (Amin et al., 2009; Hassler et al., 2011a, b).
The aim of our study was to further investigate the complex
interactions between heterotrophic bacteria and phytoplank-
ton with respect to the C and Fe cycling.
The Southern Ocean is the largest HNLC region in the
world ocean. However, in several places, natural Fe fertil-
ization sustains massive blooms (Blain et al., 2007; Pollard
et al., 2009; Nielsdóttir et al., 2012). These naturally fer-
tilized regions are exceptional laboratories to study inter-
actions between the Fe and C cycling and the role played
by microorganisms. The bloom located above the Kerguelen
Plateau was investigated in detail during KEOPS1 (Kergue-
len Ocean and Plateau compared Study, January–February
2005). KEOPS2 (October–November 2011) extended this
study to early stages of the bloom and to new investigations
in the blooms downstream the island. During KEOPS2 we
determined the Fe uptake of the bulk microbial community
and of different size fractions at stations characterized by
a wide range of responses to Fe fertilization. We also con-
ducted incubation experiments to specifically study the com-
petition between heterotrophic bacteria and phytoplankton.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Site description
This study was carried out as part of the KEOPS2 expedi-
tion that took place from 9 October to 29 November 2011,
in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean in the vicinity of
the Kerguelen archipelago. For the present study, eight sta-
Figure 1. Map of the KEOPS2 study area showing the stations sam-
pled for Fe uptake experiments. The dashed line represents the po-
sition of the polar front. The base map shows the bathymetry in
metres.
tions were sampled (Fig. 1). Station R-2 is the reference sta-
tion located outside the bloom, west of the Kerguelen Islands
(Fig. 1). The E stations were located in a complex meander
south of the polar front and sampled in a quasi-Lagrangian
manner (d’Ovidio et al., 2015). An animation is given in the
Supplement that shows the development of the bloom over
the period of the cruise and position of the stations at the
time of sampling (see the animation in the Supplement).
2.2 Sampling and manipulation under trace metal
clean conditions
Seawater samples were collected with 10-L Niskin 1010X
bottles set up on an autonomous model 1018 trace metal
rosette especially adapted for trace metal work (General
Oceanics Inc., USA; Bowie et al., 2014). Each Niskin bot-
tle was acid-washed (2 % HCl) and rinsed with Milli-Q water
before the rosette was deployed. All metal springs are Teflon-
coated, and the crimps are made of aluminium. All samples
were carefully manipulated in a clean container under a lam-
inar flow hood (ISO class 5). Within less than 2 h after sam-
ple collection, the seawater was dispersed into 500 mL acid-
washed polycarbonate (PC) bottles and the incubations per-
formed as described below. The PC bottles were acid-washed
(10 % HCl Suprapur, Merck) three times, followed by three
rinses with Milli-Q water, and were subsequently sterilized
by microwaves (5 min, 750 W). The PC bottles were dried
and stored under a laminar flow hood before being used. For
the incubation experiments described below, seawater was
collected in the surface mixed layer at one depth, and incu-
bated at different levels of surface photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR). Characteristics of the stations are given in
Table 1.
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1895
Table 1. Location, date, depth of sampling and main biogeochemical properties from studied stations. Experimental approach column refers
to Fig. 2, with (a), (b) and (c) related to incubations including the whole community, pico-nanoplankton plus bacteria, and bacteria only,
respectively.
Station Latitude Longitude Date of Depth of SST NO−3+ NO−
2a PO3−
4a Si(OH)4
b Chl a c DFed Experimental
S E sampling sampling approache
(dd/mm/yyyy) (m) (◦C) (µmolL−1) (µgL−1) (nmolL−1)
HNLC reference
R-2 −50.3590 66.7170 26/10/2011 40 2.3 25.4 1.81 12.1 0.32 0.09 (b), (c)
Kerguelen Plateau
A3-2 −50.6240 72.0560 17/11/2011 20 2.3 25.2 1.75 18.4 1.6 0.18 (a), (b), (c)
Polar front
F-L −48.5320 74.6590 07/11/2011 20 4.3 18.5 0.900 6.45 2.8 0.26 (b)
Downstream plume
E-2 −48.5230 72.0770 01/11/2011 20 3.0 26.6 1.74 14.5 0.42 0.08 (b)
E-3 −48.7020 71.9670 02/11/2011 20 3.1 25.4 1.78 15.1 0.079 0.38 (b)
E-4W −48.7650 71.4250 12/11/2011 20 2.7 25.3 1.74 17.5 0.56 0.20 (b), (c)
E-4E −48.7150 72.5630 13/11/2011 20 3.2 24.3 1.62 12.1 1.3 0.19 (a), (b), (c)
E-5 −48.4120 71.9000 19/11/2011 20 3.3 25.0 1.73 11.5 1.1 0.06 (a), (b), (c)
a From Blain et al. (2015). b From Closset et al. (2014). c From Lasbleiz et al. (2014). d From Quéroué et al. (2015). e For details see Fig. 2 and Sect. 2.3.
2.3 Iron uptake experiments
Three types of incubation experiments were performed
(Fig. 2). In one set of experiments (Fig. 2a), 300 mL of unfil-
tered seawater was amended with Fe as 55FeCl3 (0.2 nM final
concentration of 55Fe, specific activity 1.83× 103 Cimol−1,
Perkin Elmer); incubated for 24 h at 75, 25 and 1 % surface
PAR; and then sequentially filtered through 0.8 and 0.2 µm
pore size nitrocellulose filters (47 mm diameter, Nuclepore).
These incubations, performed at station A3-2, E-4E and E-5,
provided measurements of the Fe uptake of the bulk commu-
nity based on the sum of the radioactivity measured on the
0.8 and 0.2 µm filters. The uptake of Fe by heterotrophic bac-
teria incubated with the whole community (bacteria + pico-
nanoplankton + microplankton) was also determined from
these incubations. In a second set of experiments (Fig. 2b),
seawater (300 mL) was pre-filtered through a 25 µm mesh
before 0.2 nM 55Fe (final concentration) was added. This
porosity was chosen to exclude microplankton by retaining
them on the 25 µm mesh. Following incubation at 75, 45,
25, 16, 4 and 1 % of surface PAR, the seawater was sequen-
tially filtered through 0.8 and 0.2 µm filters. The uptake of
Fe by pico-nanoplankton (0.8–25 µm, Supplement table), and
that of heterotrophic bacteria (0.2–0.8 µm) in the presence
of pico-nanoplankton only, was derived from these incuba-
tions. At the stations where these two types of experiments
were performed concurrently (stations A3-2, E-4E and E-5),
the Fe uptake by microplankton was obtained by the differ-
ence between the bulk Fe uptake (Fig. 2a) and the sum of
the Fe uptake by pico-nanoplankton and heterotrophic bac-
teria (Fig. 2b). In a third set of experiments, 300 mL seawa-
ter was 0.8 µm pre-filtered prior to the addition of 0.2 nM55Fe (final concentration) to exclude both microplankton and
pico-nanoplankton from the incubation. Following the 24 h
incubation at 1 % PAR level, the seawater was filtered on a
0.2 µm filter (Fig. 2c). Based on this type of incubation, we
determined the Fe uptake by heterotrophic bacteria in incu-
bations with bacteria alone. This experiment was performed
at stations A3-2, E-4E, E-5, E-4W and R-2.
For all the incubations, bottles were maintained at in situ
surface temperature (Table 1) in on-deck incubators supplied
continuously with surface seawater. The incubators were
equipped with a combination of nickel screens (LEE Filters,
UK) simulating light intensities from 75 to 1 %. Incubations
were conducted from dawn to dawn.
Additionally, to determine whether a steady state had been
achieved after 24 h of incubation time, we performed a sepa-
rate set of experiments where Fe uptake by bacteria and bac-
terial cell abundance was followed over 24, 72, 96 h and 1-
week incubation time. Due to the low bacterial Fe uptake
rates determined over 24 h, we did not perform any time se-
ries over shorter incubation times. Our results are therefore
based on the assumption of linearity in bacterial Fe uptakes
rates over the 24 h incubation period.
2.4 Determination of intracellular 55Fe
A first step for the assessment of the 55Fe uptake was the
removal of 55Fe not incorporated by cells, using a wash-
ing solution. Following filtration, the filters were washed
with 6 mL of Ti–citrate–EDTA solution (Hudson and Morel,
1989; Tang and Morel, 2006) for 2 min and subsequently
rinsed three times with 5 mL of 0.2 µm filtered seawater for
1 min (Fourquez et al., 2012). The filters were placed into
plastic vials and 10 mL of the scintillation cocktail Filter-
count (Perkin Elmer) was added. Vials were agitated for 24 h
before the radioactivity was counted with the Tricarb® scin-
tillation counter. Total radioactivity on the filter after correc-
tion for background represents intracellular 55Fe. For each
station, controls were obtained with 300 mL of microwave-
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1896 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
Figure 2. Schematic representation of experiments to determine Fe uptake by heterotrophic bacteria (0.2–0.8 µm), pico-nanoplankton (0.8–
25 µm) and microplankton (> 25 µm) during the KEOPS2 cruise (sw: seawater; HB: heterotrophic bacteria)).
sterilized seawater (750 W for 5 min, repeated three times)
incubated with the same amount of 55Fe and treated in the
same way as the live treatments. The radioactivity deter-
mined on these filters was considered as background and is
based on the amount of 55Fe adsorbed but not incorporated
by cells. Abiotic adsorption of 55Fe onto cells could be in-
fluenced by microwave irradiation if cell structures are al-
tered by the treatment. For technical reasons, we could not
use formalin to fix the cells at each station, but we performed
a series of tests to compare fixation by formalin and by mi-
crowave. The background radioactivity of the formalin-killed
seawater was similar to that of the microwave-sterilized sea-
water, validating our control. We performed one control per
station maintained for 24 h at 75 % PAR in the on-deck incu-
bator. The radioactivity measured on the control filters was
subtracted from the respective live treatments in all experi-
ments.
To determine the most appropriate concentration of the
radioisotope to be added, different amounts of 55Fe were
tested: 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1 and 2 nM of unchelated 55Fe (as55FeCl3, final concentrations of 55Fe). We determined that
the concentration of 0.2 nM 55Fe was the most appropriate
as it minimizes changes in dissolved Fe (DFe) concentration
and it still allows for detection of the incorporated radioactiv-
ity by scintillation counting (for 300 mL of seawater filtered).
We also observed that adding more than 0.8 nM of 55Fe (fi-
nal concentration) stimulates the Fe uptake by microorgan-
isms (pico-nanoplankton and bacteria; data not shown). Us-
ing our preferred small addition of 0.2 nM, consumption of55Fe during our incubations was negligible (1–4 % of total55Fe added), and the consumption of the corresponding total
DFe even smaller.
The Fe uptake rate (molFeL−1 d−1), noted ρFe (all sym-
bols are listed in Table 2), was calculated with the following
equations:
ρFe=A·55Fe on filter
t ·V, (1)
with
A=mol 55Fe added+mol DFe in situ
mol 55Fe added, (2)
55Fe on filter=(dpm on filter sample – dpm on filter control)
55Fe specific activity, (3)
where V is the volume filtered, t the incubation time, and
dpm disintegrations per minute.
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1897
Table 2. List of abbreviations used.
Symbols Explanation
ρFe Total iron uptake
ρFealonebact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with bacterial cells alone (size fraction < 0.8 µm, Fig. 2c)
ρFe<25 µmbact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with pico- and nanoplankton only (size fraction < 25 µm, Fig. 2b)
ρFewholebact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with the whole community (unfiltered seawater, Fig. 2a)
ρFe : POC Total iron uptake normalized to particulate organic carbon
(ρFe : POC)alonebact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with bacterial cells alone (size fraction < 0.8 µm, Fig. 2c)
normalized to particulate organic carbon
(ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with pico- and nanoplankton only (size fraction < 25 µm, Fig. 2b),
normalized to particulate organic carbon
(ρFe : POC)wholebact
Bacterial iron uptake determined in incubations with the whole community (unfiltered seawater, Fig. 2a)
normalized to particulate organic carbon
2.5 Enumeration of heterotrophic bacteria
Subsamples for cell enumeration were taken at the start and
end of the incubations. To enumerate heterotrophic bacte-
ria, 2 mL samples were fixed with glutaraldehyde (1 % fi-
nal concentration), incubated for 1 h at 4 ◦C, and stored at
−80 ◦C until processed (Obernosterer et al., 2008). Het-
erotrophic bacterial cell abundance was counted with a
FASCCanto II BD flow cytometer (Becton, Dickinson). Het-
erotrophic bacterial cells were stained with SYBRGreen I
(Marie et al., 1997) and enumerated for 1 min at a rate of
30 µLmin−1. The machine drift was tested using calibration
beads (3 µm). Specific bacterial growth rates were calculated
from the slope of log-linear regression between the start and
the end of the incubation.
2.6 Carbon content of different microbial size fractions
The cellular C content for heterotrophic bacteria was es-
timated to be 12.4 fgCcell−1 as reported by Fukuda et
al. (1998). The C contents for pico-nanoplankton and mi-
croplankton were estimated from particulate organic car-
bon (POC) measured in surface seawater (< 1000 µm) on
300, 210, 50, 20, 5 and 1 µm pore-size filters (see Trull et
al., 2015). We assumed the total C biomass (representative
of the bulk community) to be the sum of all these fractions
plus the estimated C biomass for heterotrophic bacteria. For
pico-nanoplankton we assumed the sum of the POC concen-
trations on the 1 and 5 µm filters, corresponding to the 1–
20 µm size fraction, to be representative of this community.
To obtain the C biomass for microplankton, we subtracted
the POC concentration of the 0.2–20 µm size fraction of the
total C biomass.
3 Results
3.1 Bulk iron uptake rates and contribution of
different size fractions
The Fe uptake rate (ρFe) for the bulk community, determined
from incubations of unfiltered seawater (Fig. 2a), was mea-
sured at stations A3-2, E-4E and E-5, and the volumetric
and integrated values are presented on Tables 3 and 4, re-
spectively. The integration of ρFe over the euphotic layer re-
veals highest values at station E-5 (1.74 µmolFem−2 d−1),
decreasing to 1.12 µmolFem−2 d−1 at station A3-2 and to
0.86 µmolFem−2 d−1 at station E-4E (Table 4). At these
three stations the contribution of heterotrophic bacteria to
total ρFe was less than 2 % corresponding to a mean daily
integrated uptake of 0.018± 0.005 µmolm−2 d−1 (Table 4).
The contribution of the two other size fractions was station-
dependent (Fig. 3). At station E-4E, microplankton and pico-
nanoplankton had almost equal contributions to total in-
tegrated ρFe (53 and 46 %, respectively). At station A3-
2, microplankton and pico-nanoplankton accounted for 40
and 59 % of total integrated ρFe, respectively. The contri-
bution of microplankton was the highest at station E-5 (69 %
of total integrated ρFe), whereas the contribution of pico-
nanoplankton was the lowest (29 % of total integrated ρFe)
at this site.
To account for differences in the biomass among stations,
we normalized ρFe to the concentration of POC of the mi-
croplankton and pico-nanoplankton size classes and to the
estimated cellular C content for bacteria, and both ratios
are referred to ρFe : POC (Table 3). For the bulk commu-
nity, a trend similar to ρFe was observed, with the high-
est ρFe : POC at station E-5 (5.3± 1.1 µmolFed−1 molC−1;
n= 3, mean ±1 SD of the three PAR levels), decreas-
ing to 3.0± 1.0 and 2.5± 0.4 µmolFed−1 molC−1 (n=
3, mean ±1 SD) at stations A3-2 and E-4E, respectively.
Because this variability in ρFe : POC could in part re-
flect differences in ρFe and C biomass contribution of
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1898 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
Table 3. Iron uptake rates (ρFe), carbon biomass (POC), and C-normalized Fe uptake rates (ρFe : POC) of the bulk community and the three
size fractions for incubations conducted at 75, 25 and 1 % of the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, % of surface PAR) on unfiltered
seawater (see text and Fig. 2a for details).
PAR Fe uptake rate C biomass C-normalized Fe uptake rate
(%) (pmolFeL−1 d−1) (µmolCL−1) (µmolFed−1 molC−1)
A3-2 E-4E E-5 A3-2 E-4E E-5 A3-2 E-4E E-5
Bulk community 75 33.2 28.1 39.5 10.2 10.1 6.2 3.26 2.78 6.33
(> 0.2 µm)∗ 25 19.0 26.5 32.7 10.2 10.4 6.2 1.86 2.56 5.27
1 39.8 22.6 26.3 10.3 11.1 6.2 3.87 2.03 4.23
Microplankton 75 15.5 13.4 33.7 6.9 5.4 2.9 2.25 2.50 11.56
(> 25 µm) 25 5.1 13.2 22.4 6.8 5.3 2.9 0.75 2.47 7.68
1 17.9 13.5 15.3 6.9 5.4 2.9 2.60 2.52 5.25
Pico-nanoplankton 75 17.7 14.3 5.3 3.0 12.0 2.7 5.84 1.19 1.93
(0.8–25 µm) 25 13.3 12.8 9.9 3.0 12.0 2.7 4.39 1.07 3.61
1 21.3 8.8 10.1 3.0 12.1 2.8 7.03 0.73 0.39
Heterotrophic bacteria 75 0.07 0.30 0.46 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.21 0.45 0.80
(0.2–0.8 µm) 25 0.60 0.43 0.41 0.4 0.8 0.6 1.69 0.52 0.73
1 0.57 0.34 0.39 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.37 0.49 0.66
∗ ρFe : POC for bulk community was calculated as the sum of the iron uptake rates of the three size fractions divided by the sum of particulate organic
carbon of each size fraction.
organisms, we also considered ρFe : POC for the differ-
ent size classes. At station E-5 microplankton revealed the
highest ρFe : POC ratios (5.25–11.56 µmolFed−1 molC−1),
while at station A3-2 pico-nanoplankton was highest (4.39–
7.03 µmolFed−1 molC−1). At station E-5, at 75 % of PAR,
microplankton revealed the highest ρFe : POC of all ob-
served values. This is driven by the Fe uptake rate because C
biomass was almost equally partitioned between microplank-
ton (47 % of total C biomass) and pico-nanoplankton (44 %
of total C biomass). Heterotrophic bacterial ρFe : POC
was quite homogeneous in incubations at different PAR
levels at stations E-4E (0.49± 0.04 µmolFed−1 molC−1)
and E-5 (0.73± 0.07 µmolFed−1 molC−1), but it presented
high variability at station A3-2, ranging from 0.21 to
1.69 µmolFed−1 molC−1 (Table 3). As expected, due to the
low contribution of heterotrophic bacteria to total ρFe, their
C-normalized ρFe was the lowest among the three size frac-
tions.
3.2 Heterotrophic bacterial iron uptake in the absence
of phytoplankton
To investigate whether heterotrophic bacteria compete with
other members of the microbial community for the access to
Fe, the bacterial Fe uptake rates and the bacterial growth rates
were also determined during incubations where microplank-
ton and both microplankton and pico-nanoplankton were ex-
cluded (experiments (b) and (c), respectively, in Fig. 2). The
bacterial Fe uptake rates were denoted (ρFe)wholebact if incu-
bated with the whole community; (ρFe)<25 µm
bact if incubated
with pico-nanoplankton only; and (ρFe)alonebact refers to bac-
Figure 3. Relative contribution of different size fractions to total
Fe uptake (ρFe). The percent contribution was calculated from Fe
uptake fluxes integrated over the euphotic layer at plateau (A3-2)
and downstream plume (E-4E and E-5) stations.
terial Fe uptake rates measured when bacteria were incu-
bated alone, with neither micro nor pico-nanoplankton. In-
cubations without microplankton were performed at six dif-
ferent light levels. At any given station, the variability of
(ρFe)<25 µm
bact determined at different light levels did not ex-
ceed a factor of 4 (Table 5). The unique noticeable excep-
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1899
Table 4. Euphotic-layer-integrated Fe uptake of the bulk commu-
nity and three size fractions. The depth of the euphotic layer is 39 m
for A3-2, 80 m for E-4E and 41 m for E-5.
Station Euphotic-layer-integrated Fe uptake
(µmol Fe m−2 d−1)
Bulk Microplankton Pico-nanoplankton Heterotrophic
community bacteria
(> 0.2 µm) (> 25 µm) (0.8–25 µm) (0.2–0.8 µm)
A3-2 1.12 0.44 0.66 0.019
E-4E 0.86 0.45 0.40 0.013
E-5 1.74 1.21 0.51 0.023
tion was station E-3, where (ρFe)<25 µm
bact was about 2 or-
ders of magnitude higher at 75 % light level. To compare
(ρFe)<25 µm
bact among stations, we integrated over the euphotic
layer and the mixed layer depths. The outlier value at E-3
(at 75 % PAR level) was not considered for the integration.
The lowest depth-integrated values were observed at stations
R-2 and E-5 (4.7 nmolFem−2 d−1 at both stations; mean of
euphotic- and mixed-layer-integrated fluxes) and the highest
values were observed at station E-3 (18.4 nmolFem−2 d−1).
Integrated Fe uptake did not show any clear temporal evolu-
tion for the stations at the quasi-Lagrangian time series E-2,
E-3, E-4E and E-5 (Table 5).
The bacterial Fe uptake rate normalized to cellular C
content was also determined in the incubations where
microplankton was excluded (noted (ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact in
Table 5). The high value of (ρFe)<25 µm
bact measured at
E-3 (at 75 % PAR level) resulted in a high value of
(ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact (21.4 µmolFed−1 molC−1) that is consid-
ered as an outlier. All other values ranged from 0.06 to
2.94 µmolFed−1 molC−1, and they were 2- to 8-fold lower
than those in the corresponding incubations with the bulk
community (ρFe : POC)wholebact (stations A3-2, E-4E, and E-5).
The normalization does not modify our general observation
that there was no significant difference in the rates between
the different light levels and between the different stations
(two-tailed, unpaired Student’s t test, p = 0.27). In consider-
ation of this, the values at one given station are now treated
as biological replicates.
At the three stations A3-2, E-4E and E-5 we compared
the bacterial Fe uptake when bacteria were incubated with
the whole community ((ρFe : POC)wholebact ) with that when in-
cubated with pico-nanoplankton only ((ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact )
and that with bacteria alone ((ρFe : POC)alonebact , Fig. 4). For
all stations, we found that bacterial Fe uptake was the
highest in the absence of any other larger cells and the
lowest when incubated with pico-nanoplankton only, with
(ρFe : POC)alonebact > (ρFe : POC)whole
bact > (ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact .
When bacteria were incubated with the entire microbial com-
munity, (ρFe : POC)wholebact was 2–8 times higher than in the in-
cubations with pico-nanoplankton only ((ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact ),
but still lower than when bacteria were incubated alone. Sim-
ilarly to (ρFe : POC)alonebact , bacterial growth rates were by 2 to
5 times higher when bacteria were incubated alone compared
to incubations with pico-nanoplankton only (Fig. 4b).
3.3 Growth rates and iron quota of heterotrophic
bacteria
In all the incubation experiments the abundance of het-
erotrophic bacteria was determined at the beginning and at
the end of the incubation period. Assuming an exponential
growth during the incubation provided an estimate of the
growth rates. The lowest growth rate (0.02 d−1) was deter-
mined at the station R-2. For the other stations, the growth
rate ranged from 0.12 (E-5) to 0.36 d−1 (E-3). We also mea-
sured (ρFe : POC)alonebact after 24, 72, 96 h and 7 days of incu-
bation. The (ρFe : POC)alonebact was similar after 24 and 96 h of
incubation and decreased after 1 week of incubation (data not
shown). This suggests that 24 h of incubation provides a mea-
surement of steady-state Fe uptake rate. Thus, we derived the
Fe quota for heterotrophic bacteria (QFe) based on the equa-
tion ρ = µQFe (Fig. 5). The Fe quota of heterotrophic bac-
teria was 4× 10−20 molFecell−1 for stations R-2, E-5 and
E-4W, and 8×10−20 molFecell−1 for station E-2, F-L, A3-2
and E-3.
4 Discussion
4.1 The microbial iron demand
In the vicinity of the Kerguelen Islands, natural Fe fertil-
ization produces many blooms with different dynamics re-
sulting from a combination of hydrodynamic and ecological
drivers. These sites provide excellent opportunities to investi-
gate the demand of different members of the microbial com-
munity for Fe, as well as how these members interact. During
KEOPS2 we visited a variety of early spring blooms located
above the Kerguelen Plateau and in offshore waters north and
south of the polar front. We start our discussion by putting
our results in the context of previous studies related to Fe
uptake by the microbial community in the Southern Ocean.
In the early spring bloom located above the Kerguelen
Plateau (station A3-2), the total Fe demand, defined here
as the steady-state Fe uptake rate by the bulk community,
was 33.2 pmolFeL−1 d−1 in surface waters. This Fe demand
is more than 6 times higher than that determined during
KEOPS1 at the same site during the declining phase of the
bloom (5.3± 1.2 pmolL−1 d−1 for a mean value of A3-4
and A3-5, 50 % of PAR; Sarthou et al., 2008). The Fe de-
mand during KEOPS2 is also higher than that measured dur-
ing the artificial Fe fertilization experiment SOIREE in the
Antarctic zone. At about 13 days following the Fe addition,
a time point which corresponded to the growing phase of
the bloom, Bowie et al. (2001) determined an Fe demand
of 11.9 pmolL−1 d−1 (mean mixed layer). The differences
in the Fe demand between these three studies likely do not
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1900 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
Table 5. Bacterial abundance, C biomass, Fe uptake rates, C-normalized Fe uptake rates and integrated Fe uptake (to the euphotic layer
depth, Ze; to the mixed layer depth, MLD; average, avg). Values given in the columns (POC)<25 µmbact
, (ρFe)<25 µmbact
and (ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
are
relative to incubations with bacteria and pico-nanoplankton only. Values given in the columns (POC)wholebact
, (ρFe)wholebact
and (ρFe : POC)wholebact
are relative to incubations performed with the bulk community. Integrated values are calculated from incubations with bacteria and pico-
nanoplankton only. nd: no data available. Cell numbers refer to the end of the incubation time (24 h).
Station PAR Cell abundance Biomass Fe uptake rate C-normalized Fe uptake rate Integrated
level Fe uptake
(%) (×105 cellsmL−1) (µgCL−1) (pmol Fe L−1 d−1) (µmol Fe d−1mol C−1) (nmol Fe m−2 d−1)
(POC)<25 µmbact
(POC)wholebact
(POC)<25 µmbact
(POC)wholebact
(ρFe)<25 µmbact
(ρFe)wholebact
(ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
(ρFe : POC)wholebact
Ze MLD avg
E-4E 75 10.82 6.49 13.42 8.05 0.10 0.30 0.09 0.45
45 6.74 nd 8.36 nd 0.19 nd 0.28 nd
25 5.89 7.95 7.30 9.86 0.16 0.43 0.26 0.52
16 6.89 nd 8.54 nd 0.40 nd 0.56 nd 9.7 12.8 11.3
4 7.80 nd 9.67 nd 0.23 nd 0.28 nd
1 7.07 6.73 8.77 8.35 0.17 0.34 0.23 0.49
A3-2 75 nd 3.50 nd 4.34 0.25 0.07 nd 0.21
45 3.52 nd 4.36 nd 0.19 nd 0.51 nd
25 3.75 3.45 4.65 4.28 0.10 0.60 0.26 1.69
16 3.60 nd 4.46 nd 0.11 nd 0.30 nd 6.6 13.1 9.9
4 6.39 nd 7.92 nd 0.18 nd 0.27 nd
1 3.78 4.01 4.69 4.97 0.16 0.57 0.40 1.37
E-5 75 5.29 5.59 6.56 6.93 0.05 0.46 0.10 0.80
45 5.55 nd 6.88 nd 0.06 nd 0.10 nd
25 5.18 5.39 6.42 6.68 0.07 0.41 0.13 0.73
16 5.45 nd 6.76 nd 0.06 nd 0.11 nd 5.2 4.2 4.7
4 6.66 nd 8.26 nd 0.13 nd 0.19 nd
1 5.18 5.74 6.42 7.12 0.14 0.39 0.27 0.66
R-2 75 2.84 3.52 0.07 0.23
45 2.55 3.16 0.04 0.14
25 nd nd 0.00 nd
16 2.90 nd 3.60 nd 0.25 nd 0.82 nd 4.4 5.0 4.7
4 2.85 3.53 0.05 0.16
1 2.65 3.29 0.05 0.19
E-2 75 4.30 5.33 0.07 0.16
45 4.84 6.00 0.05 0.09
25 5.48 6.80 0.06 0.11
16 nd nd nd nd 0.27 nd nd nd 5.8 5.8 5.8
4 5.68 7.04 0.05 0.09
1 5.32 6.60 nd 0.06
E-3 75 6.98 8.66 15.50 21.4
45 5.83 7.23 0.25 0.41
25 7.85 9.73 0.41 0.51
16 6.96 nd 8.63 nd 0.25 nd 0.35 nd 20.0∗ 16.8∗ 18.4∗
4 8.49 10.53 0.32 0.36
1 7.27 9.01 0.29 0.39
F-L 75 5.23 6.49 0.84 1.56
45 7.80 9.67 0.36 0.45
25 7.80 9.67 0.58 0.72
16 0.82 nd 1.02 nd 0.25 nd 2.94 nd 14.0 18.4 16.2
4 3.82 4.74 0.50 1.26
1 22.36 27.73 0.49 0.21
E-4W 75 6.63 8.22 0.17 0.25
45 6.70 8.31 0.21 0.30
25 5.07 6.29 0.71 1.36
16 19.40 nd 24.06 nd 0.23 nd 0.11 nd 13.8 16.6 15.2
4 13.90 17.24 0.21 0.15
1 7.75 9.61 0.29 0.35
∗ Integrated value measured at 75 % was excluded from the calculation.
result from differences in biomass, because POC concentra-
tions in the surface mixed layer were similar between studies
(10–12 µM; Bowie et al., 2001; Sarthou et al., 2008; Trull et
al., 2015).
For the KEOPS expeditions, different stages of the bloom
provide a temporal framework to interpret these observa-
tions. However, this is not the case for the differences ob-
served between KEOPS2 and SOIREE, which were both
sampled during the early phase of a bloom, even if the
blooms occurred at different seasons. Besides the seasonal
differences, the location of the study could explain the vari-
ability in the Fe demand. Finally, the results of FeCycle
provide a comparison with the Subantarctic Zone. The Fe
demand determined for the steady-state microbial Fe bud-
get was 26–101 pmolL−1 d−1 (Strzepek et al., 2005), thus at
the upper bound or higher than during KEOPS2, although
C biomasses were similar (10.2 µM, average for the mixed
layer; Strzepek et al., 2005). From all these comparisons it
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1901
Figure 4. Bacterial Fe uptake normalized per C biomass (a) and bacterial growth rates (b) in incubations conducted with whole community
((ρFe : POC)wholebact
, unfiltered seawater), with pico-nanoplankton only ((ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
, 25 µm prefiltered seawater), and when bacteria
were incubated alone ((ρFe : POC)alonebact
, 0.8 µm prefiltered seawater). As no significant effect of light on Fe uptake was observed for any
station, we consider the values measured at the different levels of PAR as replicates. The bars for unfiltered seawater represent the aver-
age±1 SD of the three light levels (75, 25 and 1 % of surface PAR). The bars for 25 µm prefiltered seawater represent the average±1 SD of
all the light levels (n= 6 for stations E-4E, E-5 and E-4W; n= 5 for stations A3-2 and R-2).
Figure 5. Relationship between the intracellular bacterial Fe quota
and growth rate. Black squares: stations E-4W, E-5 and R-2; re-
gression line r2= 0.99, y = 4.8× 10−14
+ 8.9× 10−15. Grey cir-
cles: stations E-2, E-3, A3-2 and F-L; regression line r2= 0.99,
y = 10× 10−14+ 1.4× 10−15. Calculations are based on bacterial
Fe uptake and growth rates measured when bacteria were incubated
with pico-nanoplankton only.
appears that, besides the variability driven by temporal or
spatial factors, a plankton-based mechanistic explanation is
certainly required for a better understanding of the observed
differences.
Culture studies (Sunda and Huntsman, 1995, 1997;
Strzepek and Harrison, 2004; Marchetti et al., 2009) and
molecular approaches (Allen et al., 2008) have shown that
there are multiple strategies for phytoplankton to deal with
Fe limitation. The consequences are that bulk cell properties
like the Fe uptake rate, the intracellular Fe concentration or
the elemental Fe : C ratio are species-dependent. However,
the use of this basic knowledge to interpret field results is not
straightforward. This is primarily due to the complexity of
the natural phytoplankton community, but it is also obscured
by possible regional differences as shown by Strzepek et
al. (2012). Southern Ocean phytoplankton species responded
to Fe-light acclimation differently than temperate species
(Sunda and Huntsman, 1997; Strzepek et al., 2012). In the
case of heterotrophic bacteria, culture studies (Granger and
Price, 1999; Armstrong et al., 2004; Fourquez et al., 2014)
and metagenomic analysis (Hopkinson and Barbeau, 2012;
Toulza et al., 2012) have also provided foundations for our
understanding of the responses of bacteria to Fe limitation
but extrapolation to field observations face the same con-
straints as mentioned for phytoplankton.
A step forward to obtain some insight into the role of
the community composition is to compare parameters in dif-
ferent size fractions. In Fe-fertilized systems in the South-
ern Ocean, the largest size fraction (> 25 µm), named mi-
croplankton, is almost entirely composed of diatoms. In the
early spring bloom above the Kerguelen Plateau, this fraction
contributed 40 % of the total Fe uptake. This is substantially
lower than during the declining phase of the bloom, when
62 % of total Fe uptake was accounted for by microplankton
(Sarthou et al., 2008). This decrease in the contribution of
microplankton is consistent with the idea that the early phase
of the bloom is dominated by a succession of rapidly grow-
ing diatoms of different sizes, and that larger, slow-growing
and silicon-limited diatoms accumulate at the end of the sea-
son (Quéguiner, 2013). At the onset of the bloom above the
plateau, pico-nanoplankton were the main contributor to Fe
uptake (69 %), and this size fraction also revealed the highest
C-normalized Fe uptake rates. This fraction contains mainly
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1902 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
small diatoms because non-diatom phytoplankton, as deter-
mined by flow cytometry, had a minor contribution to POC
in this size fraction at station A3-2 (7.4±0.4 %, n= 6). This
suggests that the diatoms belonging to this size class are more
competitive than larger cells for the conditions prevailing at
this period of the season. The same observation holds for the
FeCycle experiment in the Subantarctic where the Fe uptake
was dominated by photosynthetic pico-nanoplankton during
the early bloom (Strzepek et al., 2005; Boyd and Ellwood,
2010).
In addition to ρFe : POC, we have also calculated the
Fe : C uptake ratios based on in situ primary produc-
tion measurements (Cavagna et al., 2014). In the South-
ern Ocean, Fe : C uptake ratios (noted here ρFe : ρC) re-
ported in the literature range from∼ 5 to 50 µmolFemolC−1
(Sarthou et al., 2005; and references herein) and can
reach up to 100 µmolFemolC−1, as it was reported in
some artificial Fe fertilizations (Boyd et al., 2000). During
KEOPS2, the ρFe : ρC ranged from 3.7 (station A3-2) to
22.9 µmolFemolC−1 (station E-5, Fig. 6). The values deter-
mined for the plateau station A3-2 (3.7–11 µmolFemolC−1)
are similar to those reported for the declining phase of the
bloom during KEOPS1 (5.0± 2.6 µmolFemolC−1, average
for stations A3-1, A3-4 and A3-5; Sarthou et al., 2008).
These ρFe : ρC ratios are also consistent with values mea-
sured during the two FeCycle studies where ρFe : ρC com-
prised between 5.5 and 19 µmolFemolC−1, and did not vary
much with depth and over time (Strzepek et al., 2005; King
et al., 2012). By contrast, at the stations located down-
stream of the plateau (E-4E and E-5) the ρFe : ρC values
were overall higher than above the plateau (range from 10
to 22 µmolFemolC−1).
4.2 Phytoplankton–bacteria competition for iron
acquisition
During KEOPS2, heterotrophic bacteria contributed less than
2 % to the total Fe uptake (ρFe). This is similar to the low
contribution of heterotrophic bacteria of 1–5 % to the to-
tal ρFe during FeCycle (Strzepek et al., 2005), but con-
trasts with observations from the subarctic Pacific, where
heterotrophic bacteria dominated the Fe uptake (20–45 %;
Tortell et al., 1996).
Heterotrophic bacterial Fe uptake was negatively affected
by the presence of pico- to microplankton, suggesting com-
petition between these members of the microbial community.
Competition for the limiting nutrient is not unexpected, how-
ever, this issue has rarely been addressed in previous stud-
ies (Boyd et al., 2012). Bacterial and pico-nanoplanktonic
cells could compete for nutrients as both have comparable
metabolic rates and high capacities for resource acquisition
(Massana and Logares, 2012). Our observation of the overall
low contribution of heterotrophic bacteria to bulk Fe uptake
suggests that the access to not only Fe but also organic C
could have limited the bacterial response to natural Fe fer-
Figure 6. Comparison between total Fe : C uptake ratios, noted
ρFe : ρC (black bars), and Fe uptake by the bulk community nor-
malized to C biomass noted ρFe : POC (grey bars) at three differ-
ent surface PAR levels at stations A3-2 (plateau), E-4E and E-5
(plume).
Figure 7. Relationship between the C-normalized bacterial Fe up-
take ((ρFe : POC)alonebact
) and euphotic-zone-integrated primary pro-
duction. The plotted line was obtained by least-squares regression
(r2= 0.97 with p = 0.002). Empty symbol represents the reference
station R-2 and filled symbols are for Fe-fertilized stations.
tilization. This idea is supported by the relation between the
extent of stimulation of bacterial Fe uptake in fertilized wa-
ters and the increase in primary production (Fig. 7).
The bacterial Fe uptake rates were highest when mea-
sured in the absence of any larger cells and lowest in in-
cubations where microplankton was excluded and bacte-
ria were incubated with pico-nanoplankton only (Fig. 4a).
This was the case for all stations where the experiment
was conducted with (ρFe : POC)alonebact 5 to 26 times higher
than (ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact , except for the reference station
R-2. Considering that a higher degree of Fe limitation
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1903
should result in an increased cellular Fe uptake rate raises
the question of whether different degrees of Fe limitation
of bacteria and pico-nanoplankton could explain the ob-
served pattern. To evaluate the degree of Fe limitation,
we compared bacterial and pico-nanoplankton Fe uptake
rates (Table 6). Two clear features emerge. First, Fe uptake
rates for bacteria ((ρFe : POC)alonebact ) and pico-nanoplankton
((ρFe : POC)pico-nano) are very similar for a given station,
suggesting that they experienced a comparable degree of
Fe limitation before the beginning of the incubation exper-
iment. Second, the bacterial Fe uptake rates when incubated
alone ((ρFe : POC)alonebact ) are higher in fertilized waters than
at the HNLC site, suggesting that bacteria are not Fe-replete
at the fertilized stations. The strong correlation between C-
normalized bacterial Fe uptake rates when incubated alone
and primary production (n= 5, r2= 0.97 and p = 0.002,
Fig. 7) suggests that C availability is the main driver of the
Fe uptake potential of heterotrophic bacteria. Interestingly,
no such correlation was obtained when bacteria were in-
cubated with pico-nanoplankton only (n= 5, r2= 0.31 and
p = 0.32). These observations strongly suggest that for the
stations located in Fe-fertilized regions, phytoplankton, and
in particular pico-nanoplankton, competed with bacteria for
Fe acquisition.
We propose two non-exclusive explanations for the ob-
served positive correlation between these two parameters.
First, the increase in primary production could be driven
by an increase in Fe availability that may also benefit het-
erotrophic bacteria when competition with larger cells is al-
leviated. Second, the increase in primary production could
result in an enhanced amount of phytoplankton-derived dis-
solved organic carbon (DOC), which in turn provides energy
to synthesize more Fe transport molecules to cope with a
certain degree of Fe limitation and also stimulates the bac-
terial Fe demand. In the absence of microplankton, the sup-
ply of phytoplankton-dissolved organic matter is likely to be
lower, which could explain the strong decrease in bacterial
Fe uptake rates in these incubations (ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact . Both
mechanisms are likely to occur, as independent experiments
during KEOPS2 revealed that bacterial production was stim-
ulated by both single additions of Fe and organic C (Ober-
nosterer et al., 2014).
Dissolved organic carbon is undoubtedly one of the most
important substrates provided by autotrophic phytoplankton
cells to heterotrophic bacteria. The amount of DOC pro-
duced by phytoplankton during the bloom is likely to play
a role in Fe demand by bacteria. Kirchman et al. (2000) sug-
gested that low Fe availability leads to increase the C de-
mand, and more recently Fourquez et al. (2014) provided
some evidence that marine heterotrophic bacteria reallocate
their inner resources to sustain this increase in the C de-
mand when Fe-limited. Here, we also show that high C avail-
ability leads to an increase in Fe demand. Finally we note
that the minimum values of (ρFe : POC)<25 µm
bact in compari-
Table 6. Carbon normalized Fe uptake rates for bacteria and pico-
nanoplankton. Columns (ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
and (ρFe : POC)alonebact
are for bacteria incubated with pico-nanoplankton only and bacte-
ria incubated alone, respectively. The column (ρFe : POC)pico-nano
stands for pico-nanoplankton. We note that this Fe uptake rate for
pico-nanoplankton was measured during incubations with bacteria.
Because pico-nanoplankton largely outcompeted bacteria, this rate,
(ρFe : POC)pico-nano, is a good approximation of the Fe uptake rate
for pico-nanoplankton incubated alone. Values are from incubations
performed at 1 % of the PAR level.
Station ρFe : POC
(µmolFed−1 molC−1)
(ρFe : POC)<25 µmbact
(ρFe : POC)pico-nano (ρFe : POC)alonebact
A3-2 0.40 7.04 5.17
E4-E 0.23 0.73 1.54
E-5 0.27 3.88 1.43
E4-W 0.35 4.13 9.13
R-2 0.19 0.14 0.24
son to whole-community (ρFe : POC)wholebact and bacteria-only
(ρFe : POC)alonebact incubations could arise via other microor-
ganism allelopathic interaction mechanisms than competi-
tion for Fe. As such, further research is needed to examine
interactions between pico-nanoplankton and bacteria across
a wider range of conditions, i.e. including non-limiting Fe
and C substrate levels.
Our observation that small diatoms were particularly com-
petitive in removing Fe during the early stage of the spring
phytoplankton bloom induced by natural Fe fertilization in
the Southern Ocean suggests an intimate connection between
heterotrophic bacteria and pico-nanoplankton. If this is the
case, a progressive shift in the community composition from
small to larger diatoms in the course of a bloom (Quéguiner,
2013) would affect the bacterial Fe uptake rates over time.
This could partly explain why heterotrophic bacteria ac-
counted for 17–27 % of the overall Fe uptake in the late stage
of the spring bloom (Sarthou et al., 2008), in contrast to 1–
2 % at the onset of the bloom. Together, these results demon-
strate that the bacterial Fe and C metabolism are closely cou-
pled, and that the structure of the microbial community has
a marked effect on the extent of bacterially mediated Fe cy-
cling.
The Supplement related to this article is available online
at doi:10.5194/bg-12-1893-2015-supplement.
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1904 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank the captain, Bernard
Lassiette; the chief scientist, Bernard Quéguiner; and the crew of
R/V Marion-Dufresne II for assistance on board. We gratefully
acknowledge Emmanuel Laurenceau-Cornec for making the
satellite chlorophyll animation available and Laurent Besnard for
his assistance in creating Fig. 1. We thank the two anonymous
reviewers, who helped to improve a previous version of the
manuscript. This work was supported by the French research pro-
gramme of INSU-CNRS LEFE-CYBER (Les enveloppes fluides
et l’environnement – Cycles biogéochimiques, environnement et
ressources), the French ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche,
SIMI-6 programme, ANR-10-BLAN-0614), the French CNES
(Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and the French Polar Institute
IPEV (Institut Polaire Paul-Emile Victor).
Edited by: G. Herndl
References
Allen, A. E., Laroche, J., Maheswari, U., Lommer, M., Schauer, N.,
Lopez, P. J., Finazzi, G., Fernie, A. R., and Bowler, C.: Whole-
cell response of the pennate diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum
to iron starvation, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 10438–10443,
doi:10.1073/pnas.0711370105, 2008.
Amin, S. A., Green, D. H., Hart, M. C., Küpper, F. C., Sunda, W. G.,
Carrano, C. J., and Ku, F. C.: Photolysis of iron – siderophore
chelates promotes bacterial – algal mutualism, P. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA, 106, 17071–17076, doi:10.1073/pnas.0905512106, 2009.
Armstrong, E., Granger, J., Mann, E. L., and Price, N. M.:
Outer-membrane siderophore receptors of heterotrophic
oceanic bacteria, Limnol. Oceanogr., 49, 579–587,
doi:10.4319/lo.2004.49.2.0579, 2004.
Arrigo, K. R.: Molecular diversity and ecology of microbial plank-
ton, Nature, 437, 343–348, doi:10.1038/nature04158, 2005.
Blain, S., Quéguiner, B., Armand, L., Belviso, S., Bombled, B.,
Bopp, L., Bowie, A., Brunet, C., Brussaard, C., Carlotti, F.,
Christaki, U., Corbière, A., Durand, I., Ebersbach, F., Fuda, J.-
L., Garcia, N., Gerringa, L., Griffiths, B., Guigue, C., Guillerm,
C., Jacquet, S., Jeandel, C., Laan, P., Lefèvre, D., Lo Monaco, C.,
Malits, A., Mosseri, J., Obernosterer, I., Park, Y.-H., Picheral, M.,
Pondaven, P., Remenyi, T., Sandroni, V., Sarthou, G., Savoye, N.,
Scouarnec, L., Souhaut, M., Thuiller, D., Timmermans, K., Trull,
T., Uitz, J., van Beek, P., Veldhuis, M., Vincent, D., Viollier, E.,
Vong, L., and Wagener, T.: Effect of natural iron fertilization on
carbon sequestration in the Southern Ocean, Nature, 446, 1070–
1074, doi:10.1038/nature05700, 2007.
Blain, S., Capparos, J., Guéneuguès, A., Obernosterer, I., and Oriol,
L.: Distributions and stoichiometry of dissolved nitrogen and
phosphorus in the iron-fertilized region near Kerguelen (South-
ern Ocean), Biogeosciences, 12, 623–635, doi:10.5194/bg-12-
623-2015, 2015.
Bowie, A. R., Maldonado, M. T., Frew, R. D., Croot, P. L., Achter-
berg, E. P., Mantoura, R. F. C., Worsfold, P. J., Law, C. S., and
Boyd, P. W.: The fate of added iron during a mesoscale fertilisa-
tion experiment in the Southern Ocean, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 48,
2703–2743, doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(01)00015-7, 2001.
Bowie, A. R., van der Merwe, P., Quéroué, F., Trull, T., Fourquez,
M., Planchon, F., Sarthou, G., Chever, F., Townsend, A. T.,
Obernosterer, I., Sallée, J.-B., and Blain, S.: Iron budgets
for three distinct biogeochemical sites around the Kerguelen
archipelago (Southern Ocean) during the natural fertilisation ex-
periment KEOPS-2, Biogeosciences Discuss., 11, 17861–17923,
doi:10.5194/bgd-11-17861-2014, 2014.
Boyd, P. W. and Ellwood, M. J.: The biogeochemical cycle of iron in
the ocean, Nat. Geosci., 3, 675–682, doi:10.1038/ngeo964, 2010.
Boyd, P. W., Watson, A. J., Law, C. S., Abraham, E. R., Trull, T.,
Murdoch, R., Bakker, D. C., Bowie, A. R., Buesseler, K. O.,
Chang, H., Charette, M., Croot, P., Downing, K., Frew, R., Gall,
M., Hadfield, M., Hall, J., Harvey, M., Jameson, G., LaRoche, J.,
Liddicoat, M., Ling, R., Maldonado, M. T., McKay, R. M., Nod-
der, S., Pickmere, S., Pridmore, R., Rintoul, S., Safi, K., Sutton,
P., Strzepek, R. F., Tanneberger, K., Turner, S., Waite, A., and
Zeldis, J.: A mesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar South-
ern Ocean stimulated by iron fertilization, Nature, 315, 612–617,
doi:10.1038/35037500, 2000.
Boyd, P. W., Strzepek, R., Chiswell, S., Chang, H., DeBruyn,
J. M., Ellwood, M., Keenan, S., King, A. L., Maas, E. W.,
Nodder, S., Sander, S. G., Sutton, P., Twining, B. S., Wilhelm,
S. W., and Hutchins, D. A.: Microbial control of diatom bloom
dynamics in the open ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 1–6,
doi:10.1029/2012GL053448, 2012.
Cavagna, A. J., Fripiat, F., Elskens, M., Dehairs, F., Mangion, P.,
Chirurgien, L., Closset, I., Lasbleiz, M., Flores–Leiva, L., Car-
dinal, D., Leblanc, K., Fernandez, C., Lefèvre, D., Oriol, L.,
Blain, S., and Quéguiner, B.: Biological productivity regime and
associated N cycling in the vicinity of Kerguelen Island area,
Southern Ocean, Biogeosciences Discuss., 11, 18073–18104,
doi:10.5194/bgd-11-18073-2014, 2014.
Closset, I., Lasbleiz, M., Leblanc, K., Quéguiner, B., Cavagna, A.-
J., Elskens, M., Navez, J., and Cardinal, D.: Seasonal evolution
of net and regenerated silica production around a natural Fe-
fertilized area in the Southern Ocean estimated with Si isotopic
approaches, Biogeosciences, 11, 5827–5846, doi:10.5194/bg-11-
5827-2014, 2014.
d’Ovidio, F., Della Penna, A., Trull, T. W., Nencioli, F., Pu-
jol, I., Rio, M. H., Park, Y.-H., Cotté, C., Zhou, M., and
Blain, S.: The biogeochemical structuring role of horizontal stir-
ring: Lagrangian perspectives on iron delivery downstream of
the Kerguelen plateau, Biogeosciences Discuss., 12, 779–814,
doi:10.5194/bgd-12-779-2015, 2015.
Fourquez, M., Obernosterer, I., and Blain, S.: A method for the use
of the radiotracer 55Fe for microautoradiography and CARD-
FISH of natural bacterial communities, FEMS Microbiol. Lett.,
337, 132–139, doi:10.1111/1574-6968.12022, 2012.
Fourquez, M., Devez, A., Schaumann, A., Guéneuguès, A.,
Jouenne, T., Obernosterer, I., and Blain, S.: Effects of iron
limitation on growth and carbon metabolism in oceanic and
coastal heterotrophic bacteria, Limnol. Oceanogr., 59, 349–360,
doi:10.4319/lo.2014.59.2.0349, 2014.
Fukuda, R., Ogawa, H., Nagata, T., and Koike, I.: Direct determi-
nation of carbon and nitrogen contents of natural bacterial as-
semblages in marine environments, Appl. Environ. Microb., 64,
3352–3358, 1998.
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/
M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake 1905
Granger, J. and Price, N. M.: The importance of siderophores in iron
nutrition of heterotrophic marine bacteria, Limnol. Oceanogr.,
44, 541–555, doi:10.4319/lo.1999.44.3.0541, 1999.
Hassler, C. S., Alasonati, E., Mancuso Nichols, C. A., and
Slaveykova, V. I.: Exopolysaccharides produced by bacteria iso-
lated from the pelagic Southern Ocean – Role in Fe binding,
chemical reactivity, and bioavailability, Mar. Chem., 123, 88–98,
doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2010.10.003, 2011a.
Hassler, C. S., Schoemann, V., Nichols, C. M., Butler, E. C. V., and
Boyd, P. W.: Saccharides enhance iron bioavailability to South-
ern Ocean phytoplankton, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 1076–
1081, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010963108, 2011b.
Hopkinson, B. M. and Barbeau, K. A.: Iron transporters in marine
prokaryotic genomes and metagenomes, Environ. Microbiol., 14,
114–28, doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02539.x, 2012.
Hudson, R. J. M. and Morel, F. M. M.: Distinguishing between
extra- and intracellular iron in marine phytoplankton, Lim-
nol. Oceanogr., 34, 1113–1120, doi:10.4319/lo.1989.34.6.1113,
1989.
King, A. L., Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A., Boyd, P. W., Twining, B. S.,
Wilhelm, S. W., Breene, C., Ellwood, M. J., and Hutchins, D. A.:
A comparison of biogenic iron quotas during a diatom spring
bloom using multiple approaches, Biogeosciences, 9, 667–687,
doi:10.5194/bg-9-667-2012, 2012.
Kirchman, D. L., Meon, B., Cottrell, M. T., Hutchins, D. A., Weeks,
D., and Bruland, K. W.: Carbon versus iron limitation of bacterial
growth in the California upwelling regime, Limnol. Oceanogr.,
45, 1681–1688, doi:10.4319/lo.2000.45.8.1681, 2000.
Lasbleiz, M., Leblanc, K., Blain, S., Ras, J., Cornet-Barthaux, V.,
Hélias Nunige, S., and Quéguiner, B.: Pigments, elemental com-
position (C, N, P, and Si), and stoichiometry of particulate matter
in the naturally iron fertilized region of Kerguelen in the South-
ern Ocean, Biogeosciences, 11, 5931–5955, doi:10.5194/bg-11-
5931-2014, 2014.
Litchman, E., Klausmeier, C. A., and Bossard, P.: Phytoplank-
ton nutrient competition under dynamic light regimes, Limnol.
Oceanogr., 49, 1457–1462, 2004.
Madsen, E. L.: Microorganisms and their roles in fundamen-
tal biogeochemical cycles, Curr. Opin. Biotech., 22, 456–64,
doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2011.01.008, 2011.
Maldonado, M. T., Boyd, P. W., LaRoche, J., Strzepek, R. F.,
Waite, A., Bowie, A. R., Croot, P. L., Frew, R. D., and Price,
N. M.: Iron uptake and physiological response of phytoplank-
ton during a mesoscale Southern Ocean iron enrichment, Lim-
nol. Oceanogr., 46, 1802–1808, doi:10.4319/lo.2001.46.7.1802,
2001.
Marchetti, A., Parker, M. S., Moccia, L. P., Lin, E. O., Arri-
eta, A. L., Ribalet, F., Murphy, M. E. P., Maldonado, M. T.,
and Armbrust, E. V.: Ferritin is used for iron storage in
bloom-forming marine pennate diatoms, Nature, 457, 467–470,
doi:10.1038/nature07539, 2009.
Marie, D., Partensky, F., Jacquet, S., and Vaulot, D.: Enumera-
tion and cell cycle analysis of natural populations of marine pi-
coplankton by flow cytometry using the nucleic acid stain SYBR
Green I, Appl. Environ. Microb., 63, 186–193, 1997.
Martin, J. H.: Glacial interglacial CO2 change: the iron hypothe-
sis, Paleoceanography, 5, 1–13, doi:10.1029/PA005i001p00001,
1990.
Massana, R. and Logares, R.: Eukaryotic versus prokaryotic ma-
rine picoplankton ecology, Environ. Microbiol., 15, 1254–1261,
doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12043, 2012.
Mills, M. M., Moore, C. M., Langlois, R., Milne, A., Achterberg,
E. P., Nachtigall, K., Lochte, K., Geider, R. J., and La Roche, J.:
Nitrogen and phosphorus co-limitation of bacterial productivity
and growth in the oligotrophic subtropical North Atlantic, Lim-
nol. Oceanogr., 53, 824–834, doi:10.4319/lo.2008.53.2.0824,
2008.
Nielsdóttir, M. C., Bibby, T. S., Moore, C. M., Hinz, D. J., Sanders,
R., Whitehouse, M., Korb, R., and Achterberg, E. P.: Seasonal
and spatial dynamics of iron availability in the Scotia Sea, Mar.
Chem., 130–131, 62–72, doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2011.12.004,
2012.
Obernosterer, I., Christaki, U., Lefevre, D., Catala, P., Vanwambeke,
F., and Lebaron, P.: Rapid bacterial mineralization of organic car-
bon produced during a phytoplankton bloom induced by natural
iron fertilization in the Southern Ocean, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 55,
777–789, 2008.
Obernosterer, I., Fourquez, M., and Blain, S.: Fe and C co-limitation
of heterotrophic bacteria in the naturally fertilized region off
Kerguelen Islands, Biogeosciences Discuss., 11, 15733–15752,
doi:10.5194/bgd-11-15733-2014, 2014.
Pollard, R. T., Salter, I., Sanders, R. J., Lucas, M. I., Moore, C. M.,
Mills, R. A., Statham, P. J., Allen, J. T., Baker, A. R., Bakker,
D. C. E., Charette, M. A., Fielding, S., Fones, G. R., French,
M., Hickman, A. E., Holland, R. J., Hughes, J. A., Jickells, T. D.,
Lampitt, R. S., Morris, P. J., Nédélec, F. H., Nielsdóttir, M., Plan-
quette, H., Popova, E. E., Poulton, A. J., Read, J. F., Seeyave,
S., Smith, T., Stinchcombe, M., Taylor, S., Thomalla, S., Ven-
ables, H. J., Williamson, R., and Zubkov, M. V.: southern Ocean
deep-water carbon export enhanced by natural iron fertilization,
Nature, 457, 577–580, doi:10.1038/nature07716, 2009.
Quéguiner, B.: Iron fertilization and the structure of planktonic
communities in high nutrient regions of the Southern Ocean,
Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 90, 43–54, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.07.024,
2013.
Quéroué, F., Sarthou, G., Planquette, H. F., Bucciarelli, E., Chever,
F., van der Merwe, P., Lannuzel, D., Townsend, A. T., Cheize,
M., Blain, S., d’Ovidio, F., and Bowie, A. R.: High variability
of dissolved iron concentrations in the vicinity of Kerguelen Is-
land (Southern Ocean), Biogeosciences Discuss., 12, 231–270,
doi:10.5194/bgd-12-231-2015, 2015.
Sarthou, G., Vincent, D., Christaki, U., Obernosterer, I., Timmer-
mans, K. R., and Brussaard, C. P. D.: The fate of biogenic iron
during a phytoplankton bloom induced by natural fertilisation:
impact of copepod grazing, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 55, 734–751,
doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.12.033, 2008.
Strzepek, R. F. and Harrison, P. J.: Photosynthetic architecture
differs in coastal and oceanic diatoms, Nature, 403, 689–692,
doi:10.1038/nature02954, 2004.
Strzepek, R. F., Hunter, K. A., Frew, R. D., Harrison, P. J.,
and Boyd, P. W.: Iron-light interactions differ in South-
ern Ocean phytoplankton, Limnol. Oceanogr., 57, 1182–1200,
doi:10.4319/lo.2012.57.4.1182, 2012.
Strzepek, R. F., Maldonado, M. T., Higgins, J. L., Hall, J., Safi, K.,
Wilhelm, S. W., and Boyd, P. W.: Spinning the “Ferrous Wheel”:
the importance of the microbial community in an iron budget
www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/ Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015
1906 M. Fourquez et al.: Microbial iron uptake
during the FeCycle experiment, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, 1–
14, doi:10.1029/2005GB002490, 2005.
Sunda, W. G. and Huntsman, S. A.: Iron uptake and growth lim-
itation in oceanic and coastal phytoplankton, Mar. Chem., 50,
189–206, doi:10.1016/0304-4203(95)00035-P, 1995.
Sunda, W. G. and Huntsman, S. A.: Interrelated influence of iron,
light and cell size on marine phytoplankton growth, Nature, 390,
389–392, doi:10.1038/37093, 1997.
Tang, D. and Morel, F. M. M.: Distinguishing between cellular
and Fe-oxide-associated trace elements in phytoplankton, Mar.
Chem., 98, 18–30, doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2005.06.003, 2006.
Tortell, P. D., Maldonado, M. T., and Price, N. M.: The role of
heterotrophic bacteria in iron-limited ocean ecosystems, Nature,
383, 330–332, doi:10.1038/383330a0, 1996.
Toulza, E., Tagliabue, A., Blain, S., and Piganeau, G.: Analysis of
the global ocean sampling (GOS) project for trends in iron up-
take by surface ocean microbes, edited by: Rodriguez-Valera, F.,
PLoS One, 7, e30931, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030931, 2012.
Trull, T. W., Davies, D. M., Dehairs, F., Cavagna, A.-J., Las-
bleiz, M., Laurenceau-Cornec, E. C., d’Ovidio, F., Planchon, F.,
Leblanc, K., Quéguiner, B., and Blain, S.: Chemometric perspec-
tives on plankton community responses to natural iron fertilisa-
tion over and downstream of the Kerguelen Plateau in the South-
ern Ocean, Biogeosciences, 12, 1029–1056, doi:10.5194/bg-12-
1029-2015, 2015.
Biogeosciences, 12, 1893–1906, 2015 www.biogeosciences.net/12/1893/2015/